undefined | Better HN

0 pointsCryptoPunk6y ago0 comments

Unions were very weak pre-labor-laws. Unionization rates were very low consequently.

Whatever power they did have emanated from the threat of their illegal activity, ranging from blockading company premises (e.g. stopping trains) to setting up picket lines that involved violence against 'scabs'.

>>Your other comments still do not address the questions I asked, like, "what makes something a 'conspiracy theory'?".

I'm happy to carry that line on in another forum.

>>If my contract with you says that disputes are exclusively to be settled by mediation with company X, then that prohibits other companies from being involved in the mediation.

Of course, but labor laws, as they stand, prohibit companies from negotiating with any party but the union in the event that one of their work units unionizes and demands collective bargaining. This is regardless of what the company agreed to.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

eesmith6y ago· 2 in thread

So, "no power" = "very weak"? You sure you haven't moved the goalposts?

The Boston Journeymen Bootmaker's Society won the labor action, and the lawsuit. Why should I believe the Society was weak?

Wait employed five or six Society members, and only one not willing to be in the Society. That sounds like the boot industry, at least, had a high unionization rate.

Of course, that was a craft union. I think you are talking about industrial unions. Which didn't, you know, really exist until after there were big industries in the late 1800s.

"Whatever power they did have emanated from the threat of their illegal activity"

I don't think you read the Wikipedia page on Commonwealth v. Hunt that I linked you to.

It was clear that the Society's power emanated from the threat of a walkout, and not from any sort of illegal activity. Indeed, the court decision was that "labor combinations were legal provided that they were organized for a legal purpose and used legal means to achieve their goals." (quoting Wikipedia).

A walkout must be legal in a free market. Otherwise it's forced labor to say that someone can't quit if they no longer want to work a given job.

You write "as they stand". Which is entirely my point. We are not in a free market. If people really want a free market, they need to advocate for removing restriction on both labor and capital.

Those who only want to remove restrictions on the control of capital, and not labor, are using "free market" hypocritically.

Edit: And remember, the union powers prohibited by Taft-Hartley were legal until then, so those aren't examples of the illegal actions you refer to.

CryptoPunkOP6y ago

If unions have power in a free market, that would be absolutely fine with me lol

But you're being disingenuous and or are deluding yourself if you claim that union power wasn't vastly more limited before the advent of labor laws, and that what power they did have wasn't disproportionately as a result of the threat that they'd engage in the illegal acts that they were so well known for.

So to clarify, while I predict any transition to a free market would result in a drastic reduction in the power of unions, I would have no problem with a scenario where my prediction proves wrong and unions have substantial power in a free market. I just don't like the laws that overwhelmingly advantage unions at the expense of investors.

eesmith6y ago

Do you, or do you not, support repealing Taft-Hartley as part of your advocacy for a free market?

Why or why not?

Since you argue "I just don't like the laws that overwhelmingly advantage unions at the expense of investors", I think you believe the current US laws are too union friendly. Which is hilarious. Was there ever a time in US history when you think the balance was right? Or have they always been pro-union? If not, when do you think the balance changed, and what caused that change?

Part of what makes it hilarious is that we only need to look at the recent wildcat strike by teachers in West Virginia to see that 1) their actions were illegal - state law prohibits public employee strikes, 2) it was effective not due to threat of physical intimidation but by threat of mass departure.

Companies right now are disproportionately powerful, including as as a result of actually doing illegal acts. Wage theft is one of the most common crimes in the US, and it often goes unpunished.

About 10 years ago, Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe Systems and others conspired to refrain from soliciting each another's employees to keep their salaries artificially low. Their fine was less than their profit from the crime, no high-level exec went to jail, and all the companies are still geld in high esteem.

Even if we stick to corporate involvement with unions, "U.S. employers are charged with violating federal law in 41.5% of all union election campaigns" - https://www.epi.org/publication/unlawful-employer-opposition...

> Employers are charged with violating federal law in 41.5% of all union election campaigns. And one out of five union election campaigns involves a charge that a worker was illegally fired for union activity. Employers are charged with making threats, engaging in surveillance activities, or harassing workers in nearly a third of all union election campaigns. Beyond this, there are many things employers can do legally to thwart union organizing; employers spend roughly $340 million annually on “union avoidance” consultants to help them stave off union elections. This combination of illegal conduct and legal coercion has ensured that union elections are characterized by employer intimidation and in no way reflect the democratic process guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act.

This is not surprising, because just like pro-union people engaged in "illegal acts" - and mind you, who had the biggest influence in creating all of those laws? - companies also engaged in horrid, immoral, and illegal acts.

Or, do you defend the action of the government and coal mine owners involved in the Ludlow Massacre?

Do you defend the actions of the Pinkerton National Detective Agency as they hired goons to physically intimidate and attack union members? There are still federal laws limiting the federal use of "The Pinks."

What is your take on the conclusions of the La Follette Committee? Did the extensive espionage system of private corporations, as part of their union-fighting efforts, indeed mean that "employees became subjugated to private corporations and were denied constitutional rights"? Why did companies need to use "[M]achine guns, tear gas bombs, and clubs ... to prevent and disperse union meetings"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Follette_Committee

So sure, you can bring up "the illegal acts that [unions] were so well known for". "But you're being disingenuous and or are deluding yourself if you claim that" businesses weren't engaged in even more horrid behavior.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse